Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No that isn’t the same thing. I agree with him on that point.(Science explains a lot of what people used to assign to a god)
My understanding of Atheism(which could very well be wrong) is that those that subscribe to that belief categorically state that there is no such thing/place and the very idea of an afterlife/other dimension/thing-that-people-call-God etc is poppycock. All there is is here, and now, and nothing else.
I don’t understand how a scientist of any degree can take that view.... knowing what we don’t know.
I look at it as a question of how we know that what we know is factually supported.
For instance, we knew for a good century that the atomic theory must be very close to true because we used that theory to synthesize chemicals that are not found in nature. Now atomic theory has been superseded/folded within quantum mechanics which explains things even better, but your ordinary garden-variety chemist still learns classic atomic theory. Because it works.
Hawking once said that if you’re going to look for god in science, where you need to look is answering the question of why the universe bothers to exist. He obviously finally answered that question to his own satisfaction.
My personal view is that none of the multitudinous god theories that humans have propounded have ever come even close to being factually supported. And this includes transcendental/mystical experiences, which tell us a lot about how the human mind works, but not whether those experiences are Instigated by god. I don’t understand how any theist can continue to believe in the face of centuries upon centuries of so much explanatory failure.
I don’t understand how any theist can continue to believe in the face of centuries upon centuries of so much explanatory failure.
Thoughtful post, the Hawking quote cuts straight to the center of the matter.
Religion fails against logic, which suggests that religious belief is unrelated to the logic, representative of some other aspect of the believer's personality. Dismally, some percentage of those would be the people of low intelligence who do not recognize logic when it is shown to them. A far larger portion would be composed of those with an emotional investment in the faith which transcends logic.
Before we condemn this as a shortcoming, we should examine ourselves for similar behavior found in the non religious aspects of our lives. Have you always done the most logical thing in your life, or have you sometimes made an illogical choice because it suited some aspect of your personality which was stronger than the logic? Ever buy something that you knew you would probably not use much, but bought it anyway? Ever taken a stance on principle even though you knew it was going to cost you something? Or done the opposite, opted for the comfort at the expense of the principle? Was logic the difference between the situations?
I suspect that a lot of the theists are simply us...with different pathology paths followed.
Thoughtful post, the Hawking quote cuts straight to the center of the matter.
Religion fails against logic, which suggests that religious belief is unrelated to the logic, representative of some other aspect of the believer's personality. Dismally, some percentage of those would be the people of low intelligence who do not recognize logic when it is shown to them. A far larger portion would be composed of those with an emotional investment in the faith which transcends logic.
Before we condemn this as a shortcoming, we should examine ourselves for similar behavior found in the non religious aspects of our lives. Have you always done the most logical thing in your life, or have you sometimes made an illogical choice because it suited some aspect of your personality which was stronger than the logic? Ever buy something that you knew you would probably not use much, but bought it anyway? Ever taken a stance on principle even though you knew it was going to cost you something? Or done the opposite, opted for the comfort at the expense of the principle? Was logic the difference between the situations?
I suspect that a lot of the theists are simply us...with different pathology paths followed.
Perhaps the difference would be that, eventually, we's admit is was a waste of money. A real closed mind never admits that, ever. Have ever known a type who would never, ever, admit to being wrong? Counter attacks: 'You think your'e so smart? How come you don't have a Nobel prize?' misdirection, irrelevancy, undisprovable claims "I have heard a lot of people agree with me." Ever know one?
I hope there not too many atheists here like that.
No that isn’t the same thing. I agree with him on that point.(Science explains a lot of what people used to assign to a god)
My understanding of Atheism(which could very well be wrong) is that those that subscribe to that belief categorically state that there is no such thing/place and the very idea of an afterlife/other dimension/thing-that-people-call-God etc is poppycock. All there is is here, and now, and nothing else.
I don’t understand how a scientist of any degree can take that view.... knowing what we don’t know.
Have ever known a type who would never, ever, admit to being wrong?
If it turns out that there really are Pearly Gates, I suppose we will have to make those admissions. If such is the case, I plan to lawyer up and claim insufficient notification.
But if you believe that the abilities of the human mind are yet to be fully explained, and that we still have a lot to learn about time- our perception of it, it’s permanenece (or not), our place in the cosmos, the existence of other life on other planets, the true depth of what exists in our oceans... etc.
Knowing all that.... how can one catergorically state that this one explanation is the only possible explanation? Wouldn’t a softer stance; eg; “this is the explanation that make sense based on available Information however more study is needed...” be in order.
Because, save for Bhuddhists, I am yet to meet either a Theist or an Atheist who is willing to concede that their position could very well be wrong- or is at least based on a lack of information.
I have posted in the past that I might be wrong, probably in the R&S forum. I do not believe in any Gods, but 8 might be wrong. I don't believe that the Bible is the literal truth and in that I have almost total confidence in my opinion.
I do strongly agree with Hawking when he stated that for the universe to exist there doesn't have to be a God. That 8s, of course, different from saying that God does not exist.
If it turns out that there really are Pearly Gates, I suppose we will have to make those admissions. If such is the case, I plan to lawyer up and claim insufficient notification.
You're sure that you'll be going to perdition, then.
I have posted in the past that I might be wrong, probably in the R&S forum. I do not believe in any Gods, but 8 might be wrong. I don't believe that the Bible is the literal truth and in that I have almost total confidence in my opinion.
I do strongly agree with Hawking when he stated that for the universe to exist there doesn't have to be a God. That 8s, of course, different from saying that God does not exist.
Correct. I can't state it categorically as I haven't gone deep into it, but Hawking od an expert in the field, so his opinion ought to count for something,
I agree that the God of the Bible doesn't exist. Morally convinced of that. A possible creator, I have some strong doubts. But even without those, even if there was no vague idea of a natural creating event, and the possible stuff it could have grown out of without the need to create in the first place, a god would simply be one claim against another. But we do have the tentative reasons to suppose that a natural explanation has something going for it. And, if so, there is no need to entertain the claim that a god in necessary for an explanation. It isn't.
That's the way it is, and nobody is saying that it's all known yet. But the discoveries seem to be rather on the side of naturedunnit rather than a god.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
